33d  Congress, 
Is/  Session . 


[SENATE.] 


Rep.  Com. 
No.  295. 


•sr 


IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Mat  30,  1854. — Ordered  to  be  printed. 


Mr.  Sebastian  made  the  following 


REPORT. 


[To  accompany  Bill  S.  390.] 

The  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  to  whom  was  referred  the  claim  of  Overton 

Love,  a  Chickasaw  Indian,  report : 

That  sometime  in  December,  1847,  or  January,  1848,  a  band  of  nine 
or  ten  armed  men,  from  the  State  of  Texas,  crossed  Red  river  and 
forcibly  took  from  the  premises  of  Overton  Love  four  of  his  slaves, 
named  Patrick,  Malinda,  Lucinda,  and  Susan,  the  right  to  which  he 
acquired  from  a  devise  of  Nancy  Guest  to  his  wife.  And  at  the  same 
time  and  place  they  also  seized  and  abducted  their  slaves  named  Harriet 
and  her  infant,  and  a  boy  named  Andy,  the  property,  under  the  same 
will,  of  John  Guest,  a  minor  and  brother  of  Mrs.  Love.  The  value  of 
the  aforesaid  slaves,  according  to  the  lowest  rate  established  by  deposi¬ 
tions  before  Agent  A.  J.  Smith,  was  for  those  of  Overton  Love,  $2,400, 
and  for  those  of  John  Guest  $1,300.  These  slaves  were  the  property  of 
Chickasaw  Indians,  and  were  taken  from  their  possession  in  the  Chick¬ 
asaw  district  of  the  Choctaw  nation.  The  facts  were  duly  commu¬ 
nicated  to  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  and  the  case  was  re¬ 
ferred  to  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  who  instructed  the  district  attor¬ 
ney  of  Texas  to  institute  civil  proceedings  in  the  district  court  of  the 
United  States  for  that  State,  against  the  offenders.  A  report  from  the 
district  attorney,  after  great  delay,  disclosed  the  fact  that  the  defend¬ 
ants  were  all  irresponsible,  and  either  dead  or  fled  to  California  or 
Mexico,  and  beyond  the  reach  of  process.  The  suit  was,  therefore, 
abandoned.  The  slaves  were  removed  to  parts  unknown,  and  have 
never  been  recovered.  The  owners  have  not  only  not  resorted  to  any 
violence  or  retaliation,  but  have  patiently  awaited  the  result  of  tedious 
and  ineffectual  legal  proceedings  for  redress.  They  now  ask  that  the 
United  States  pay  the  value  of  said  property,  as  prescribed  in  the  16th 
section  of  the  intercourse  law  of  1834.  The  section  above  referred  to, 
is  as  follows : 

“That  when,  in  the  commission  by  a  white  person  of  any  crime, 
offence,  or  misdemeanor,  within  the  Indian  country,  the  property  of  any 
friendly  Indian  is  taken,  injured,  or  destroyed,  and  a  conviction  is  had 
for  such  crime,  offence,  or  misdemeanor,  the  person  so  convicted,  shall 
be  sentenced  to  pay  to  such  friendly  Indians  to  whom  the  property  may 
belong,  or  whose  person  may  be  injured,  a  sum  equal  to  twice  the  just 


2 


S.  Rep.  295. 

value  of  the  property  so  taken,  injured,  or  destroyed  ;  and  if  such  offender 
shall  be  unable  to  pay  a  sum  equal  to  the  just  value  or  amount,  what¬ 
ever  such  payment  shall  fall  short  of  the  same  shall  be  paid  out  of  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States  :  Provided ,  That  no  such  Indian  shall  be 
entitled  to  any  payment  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  for 
any  such  property  if  he,  or  any  of  the  nation  to  which  he  belongs,  shall 
have  sought  private  revenge,  or  attempted  to  obtain  satisfaction  by  any 
foroe  or  violence :  And  provided ,  also,  That  if  such  offender  cannot  be 
apprehended  and  brought  to  trial ,  the  amount  of  such  property  shall  be  paid 
out  of  the  Treasury  as  aforesaid  A 

It  is  said  that  the  property  was  taken  under  some  pretext  of  a  claim — 
a  pretext  which  is  scarcely  plausible  even,  when  the  character  of  the 
offenders,  and  their  final  concealment  of  the  property  and  of  them¬ 
selves  is  considered.  Such  a  claim,  if  honestlv  entertained,  could  not 
otherwise  palliate  the  act,  than  to  reduce  the  guilt  of  the  parties  from  a 
larceny  or  robbery  to  a  trespass.  The  property  had  been  in  the  peace¬ 
able  possession  of  the  claimants  and  of  the  testator  who  bequeathed  it 
to  them ;  and  the  seizure  of  it  by  strong  hand,  without  legal  process, 
and  within  the  territories  of  a  nation  with  whom  the  United  States 
were,  and  ever  have  been,  at  peace,  was,  to  say  the  least,  “  an  offence 
or  misdemeanor,”  and,  therefore,  within  a  class  of  cases  for  which  that 
act  provides.  The  other  conditions  of  the  act  have  been  fulfilled,  and 
their  right  to  the  payment  is  now  clear  and  absolute.  They  have  not 
sought  revenge  or  private  satisfaction,  and  the  offenders  “cannot  be 
apprehended  and  brought  to  trial.”  The  committee,  therefore,  report 
a  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  claimants. 


